Belief

[The AntiJew]

I often wonder why people believe the things they do, and the reasons why they believe them. I divide belief into trivial and non-trivial beliefs. Trivial beliefs are those kinds of beliefs about things as they are. If you were drinking coffee and had the cup on a table before you, you would believe the cup and table existed.

It would be a trivial belief that things appear in some way relative to an orientation in space and time. But non-trivial beliefs are those which don't necessarily arise from or have sensory form. Religious belief is what i would call a non-trivial belief, because it transcends the sensory and momentary orientation, configuration and such in space and time.

I find it odd how people can have beliefs at all without having certainty that those beliefs are true. I can be absolutely certain if I am drinking coffee or beer, or that i am typing on a computer. But trivial beliefs only extend to the immediate moment of orientation in space and time and are relative to the observer. I think that all other beliefs are inherently non-trivial and without certainty, it is foolish to believe anything beyond the immediacy of the moment and only that things appear as they do relative to an orientation and configuration in space at a particular moment in time.

[Iscariot]

tl;dr

[The AntiJew]

this sub-forum requires reading and comprehension skills

[Der Übermensch]

Perhaps, but it also requires paragraphs. Reading those long run on's just hurts the eyes...

[The AntiJew]

ok are you happy now?

[33rd and a half Degree]

Why is certainty necessary for belief? It is contradictory to believe nothing is certain and be certain about it. The more evidence one has to support a belief the more likely it is true.

[The AntiJew]

Without certainty there is room for error, but there is a difference between believing something and knowing it. Everything that appears to the senses is relative to the individual and subjective. Without a standard there is no way to differentiate the impressions and there is no proof that can establish a standard in such a case. So it would seem that you can not really know anything beyond immediate sensation, you can hold beliefs but they are only likely to be true. Since everything is in a constant state of change it is rather foolish to believe much beyond what is immediate to your circumstances, for nothing can truly be verified beyond the moment of sensation.

[Surtr]

I think that all other beliefs are inherently non-trivial and without certainty, it is foolish to believe anything beyond the immediacy of the moment and only that things appear as they do relative to an orientation and configuration in space at a particular moment in time.

Wait, so you believe that its foolish to believe anything beyond the immediate moment...

I believe that you should believe whatever you choose because at any moment you could stop believing, so enjoy it for the course of time you believe in it.

[Permanent Solution]

I can be absolutely certain if I am drinking coffee or beer, or that i am typing on a computer.
How's that?

[RNR]

So am I silly to believe that they speak French in France? I've never been, but I think that they might.

[McP3000]

thread starter takes skepticism to astronomically stupid levels itt

[Surtr]

So am I silly to believe that they speak French in France? I've never been, but I think that they might.

Basically this. By even being on the internet and posting this you're starting to tread onto dangerous ground according to your beliefs, which are somewhat flawed as by believing in them you're disagreeing with them.

Assuming that I'm real and actually replying to you, or at that any of us are, is absolutely foolish by your beliefs lol.

[The AntiJew]

Wait, so you believe that its foolish to believe anything beyond the immediate moment...


No I don't believe that, but i am certain the only thing that can be certain is the moment of perception which is the only moment any of us actually live. What is past is past and what will be hasn't happened yet.


I believe that you should believe whatever you choose because at any moment you could stop believing, so enjoy it for the course of time you believe in it.

But see, we all have many beliefs, and if belief is integral to knowledge and knowing then what you know is something that you believe and if that belief changes then you must admit that your knowledge is tentative at best and probably not true.


So am I silly to believe that they speak French in France? I've never been, but I think that they might.

That is a trivial belief, one which can be verified in the moment. It may be french people don't speak french, unless you speak french how would you know what french is? You can only be absolutely certain in the absolute moment which is now, the only instant of time you have perception and cognition of what is going on around you; every other moment before and after becomes skewed through the perception of retrospect or desires of what you wish will be, that is what has been and what might be. Without being certain of certainty you must admit that what you believe could be wrong and if so, what you know may not be true.


Basically this. By even being on the internet and posting this you're starting to tread onto dangerous ground according to your beliefs, which are somewhat flawed as by believing in them you're disagreeing with them.


No how do you know for certain that this is not just all part of a dream, that you are dreaming you are conscious and awake, but really you are a sleep? Or how do you even know you really exist if not at this very exact moment you have some sort of sensation of being conscious?


Assuming that I'm real and actually replying to you, or at that any of us are, is absolutely foolish by your beliefs lol.

I hold only those beliefs which exist in the moment of perception.

[siva_chair]

"Don't seek reality, just put an end to opinions."

[The AntiJew]

If we all knew what reality actually was there would be no need for opinions.

[siva_chair]

Why do you think an opinion is going to get you any closer to reality?

[The AntiJew]

I do not think that, and i have never thought that as far as I am aware, but it may be sometime in the future i might think it, but as of now i am unaware of ever having thought that before.

[siva_chair]

Then why do you care what other people believe and why they believe those things?

[The AntiJew]

most beliefs are infectious diseases which spread through society and infect people with dogmas, and by this people are controlled and manipulated by other people who think they understand things when they do not

do you not see that every proposition has an equal and opposite proposition which when brought togethor, cancel one another out?

[MattSharpIsCool]

No how do you know for certain that this is not just all part of a dream, that you are dreaming you are conscious and awake, but really you are a sleep? Or how do you even know you really exist if not at this very exact moment you have some sort of sensation of being conscious?

Welcome to The Matrix.

[siva_chair]

most beliefs are infectious diseases which spread through society and infect people with dogmas, and by this people are controlled and manipulated by other people who think they understand things when they do not

But your beliefs allow you to understand things?

It seems to me that this whole business of seperating "my beliefs" from "your beliefs" is the very fundamental idea of what these so called dogmas are founded on.

do you not see that every proposition has an equal and opposite proposition which when brought togethor, cancel one another out?

Whether I see that or not matters little to the above stated question.

[The AntiJew]

But your beliefs allow you to understand things?


How does belief allow you to understand things? It is your belief that what you believe may be understanding but really if you remove all your beliefs what do you have other than the moment of perception which is right now, the very instant you are aware? You aren't aware in any other instant except the current moment, and you would be aware of the appearances of things which surround you in your environment which if you no longer believed, would just be things which are what they are.


It seems to me that this whole business of seperating "my beliefs" from "your beliefs" is the very fundamental idea of what these so called dogmas are founded on.


Is it not the nature of the believer to want to believe in what is true?


Whether I see that or not matters little to the above stated question.

Have you ever noticed that every belief has an equal and opposite belief which opposes it?

[siva_chair]

How does belief allow you to understand things? It is your belief that what you believe may be understanding but really if you remove all your beliefs what do you have other than the moment of perception which is right now, the very instant you are aware? You aren't aware in any other instant except the current moment, and you would be aware of the appearances of things which surround you in your environment which if you no longer believed, would just be things which are what they are.

No see that is what I asked you. Why do you care what people believe? Why do you seek to form a belief on the issue?

Is it not the nature of the believer to want to believe in what is true?

I don't know ask yourself. Why do you believe in what you do?

Have you ever noticed that every belief has an equal and opposite belief which opposes it?

Of course. But that doesn't answer why you are concerned with what other people believe and why.

[The AntiJew]

Why do you care what people believe?

False beliefs are dangerous


Why do you seek to form a belief on the issue?


It is not really that I seek to form a belief but rather to investigate these things and to discover whether or not they hold any merit.


I don't know ask yourself. Why do you believe in what you do?


I already answered this I hold trivial beliefs it is the non-trivial beliefs that are problematic



Of course.

Well then why would you think one belief is better than another if when both are brought together there is nothing to believe in?

[siva_chair]

False beliefs are dangerous

Ok. Isn't that a belief in of itself?

What is to say that this belief isn't dangerous?

It seems to me that this dividing up of beliefs is exactly what this dogma stuff you are denouncing is all about.

It is not really that I seek to form a belief but rather to investigate these things and to discover whether or not they hold any merit.

Isn't that just a more verbose way of saying you want to form a belief or opinion on the matter? You want to discover a belief that you hold to be correct or true, no?

I already answered this I hold trivial beliefs it is the non-trivial beliefs that are problematics

It sounds like you have already made up your mind. You have already said you are going to categorize a belief as "this" or "that" so what is it you are looking for?

Well then why would you think one belief is better than another if when both are brought together there is nothing to believe in?

I never said any belief is better than another. I simply said I noticed what you are talking about.

[Iscariot]

this thread is sucking all of the fun out of life

[The AntiJew]

Ok. Isn't that a belief in of itself?


No, it is not a belief


What is to say that this belief isn't dangerous?


It would have to be a belief.


It seems to me that this dividing up of beliefs is exactly what this dogma stuff you are denouncing is all about.


No, I don't really know if there is any difference between these, or whether my arguments are valid or not. The dogmatist believes, I investigate.


Isn't that just a more verbose way of saying you want to form a belief or opinion on the matter? You want to discover a belief that you hold to be correct or true, no?


It is that most beliefs once exposed are found to be lacking.



It sounds like you have already made up your mind. You have already said you are going to categorize a belief as "this" or "that" so what is it you are looking for?


That was for your benefit



I never said any belief is better than another. I simply said I noticed what you are talking about.

I am glad you have discovered this.

[siva_chair]

No, it is not a belief

How?

It would have to be a belief.



No, I don't really know if there is any difference between these, or whether my arguments are valid or not. The dogmatist believes, I investigate.

What are you investigating if not to come to some belief on the issue?

It is that most beliefs once exposed are found to be lacking.

This sounds awefully like a statement of belief right here.

That was for your benefit

Well you explicitely stated that you believe some beliefs to be trivial and some beliefs to be non-trivial and then proceeded to categorize particular beliefs into one or the other. Sounds like you have a belief and have made up your mind on what designates a belief into either category.

[The AntiJew]

How?


What do you mean? If you suck on a lemon, it may taste sour. But to a cow it may not. Or to a horse it may be sweet.


What are you investigating if not to come to some belief on the issue?


I investigate the nature of things as they appear in the hope to find what is true and what is not.



This sounds awefully like a statement of belief right here.


It is really just the way things turn out to be under observation



Well you explicitely stated that you believe some beliefs to be trivial and some beliefs to be non-trivial and then proceeded to categorize particular beliefs into one or the other. Sounds like you have a belief and have made up your mind on what designates a belief into either category.

Well I don't know if I believe it, but I said it for your benefit in the hopes you would investigate them.

[siva_chair]

What do you mean? If you suck on a lemon, it may taste sour. But to a cow it may not. Or to a horse it may be sweet.

"False beliefs are dangerous."

How is this something other than a belief.

I investigate the nature of things as they appear in the hope to find what is true and what is not.

You hope to find a belief of what is true and what is not.

It is really just the way things turn out to be under observation

You believe.

Well I don't know if I believe it, but I said it for your benefit in the hopes you would investigate them.

Why do you believe I should investigate these things under these criteria?

[The AntiJew]

"False beliefs are dangerous."

How is this something other than a belief.


things are as they are observed to be



You hope to find a belief of what is true and what is not.
You believe.


do I? How would you know this?


Why do you believe I should investigate these things under these criteria?

I don't know do you have one?

[siva_chair]

things are as they are observed to be

You believe them to be as you observe them to be.

do I? How would you know this?

I'm just going off of what you stated.

I don't know do you have one?

If I do it matters little and certainly doesn't have anything to do with what I asked you in that question.

[The AntiJew]

You believe them to be as you observe them to be.


Why must you believe something to observe it?



I'm just going off of what you stated.


What was that?



If I do it matters little and certainly doesn't have anything to do with what I asked you in that question.

Do you think you need a criteria in order to investigate?

[siva_chair]

Why must you believe something to observe it?

You must believe something so say "this is true" or "this is false."

What was that?

The multiple statements of belief you have made ITT.

Do you think you need a criteria in order to investigate?

No, but you proposed one.

[SkaRobotArmy]

Belief : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence - www.m-w.com

ITT the argument never ends because the TS'S statement was hypocritical.

[The AntiJew]

I never said all beliefs were wrong or that I didn't hold some beliefs. I never said that there is nothing true either.

[The AntiJew]

You must believe something so say "this is true" or "this is false."


But I have not said anything is true or false.



The multiple statements of belief you have made ITT.


You are seeing something that isn't there.


No, but you proposed one.

I did? When?

[siva_chair]

But I have not said anything is true or false.

"False beliefs are dangerous."

Do you believe this statement to be true?

You are seeing something that isn't there.

I am only seeing what you type in this thread.

I did? When?

In the very first post. You proposed that some beliefs are trivial and some are non-trivial.

[SkaRobotArmy]

I never said all beliefs were wrong or that I didn't hold some beliefs. I never said that there is nothing true either.

you're beliefs are silly.

this is true.

i win.:smash:

[Surtr]

I hold only those beliefs which exist in the moment of perception.

So looking back, without looking directly at that post, do you still believe it?

You're a fool. Most of us are, but you seem to be one especially more than most.

[Iscariot]

the faux intellectual circular speak in this thread between siva and antijew is making my face explode

[The AntiJew]

"False beliefs are dangerous."

Do you believe this statement to be true?


Do you believe false beliefs are not dangerous?



In the very first post. You proposed that some beliefs are trivial and some are non-trivial.

That was for your benefit.


you're beliefs are silly.

this is true.

i win.:smash:

What beliefs?


So looking back, without looking directly at that post, do you still believe it?


Believe what?


You're a fool. Most of us are, but you seem to be one especially more than most.

Do you believe this?

[Smokey D]

Anti Jew is the worst troll ever.

Or at least since Voluminous Flush.

[The AntiJew]

By what criteria do you make that judgment?

[Smokey D]

General inanity.

[Against Miik!]

They speak French in France, just so everybody knows...

[The AntiJew]

General inanity.

Is that absolute?

They speak French in France, just so everybody knows...


Do you speak french?

[Against Miik!]

Yes of course

[The AntiJew]

Yes of course

Have you ever been to France?

[jaredong]

i think hume was the one whos like "i cant know anything for certain due to the problem of induction" but in the later chapter of the book was like "oh well, its the best we got so lol"

honestly, its a good thought but whatcha gonna do

[Futue te Ipsum]

finding the word "lol" in work by Hume really would make my day.

[McP3000]

write it in there with a highligher

[Futue te Ipsum]

I don't have any of his stuff and i'm not writing on my monitor

maybe i should use notebook or something to do it

[jaredong]

here! paragraph 128
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8echu10h.htm#section12

For here is the chief and most confounding objection to excessive scepticism, that no durable good can ever result from it; while it remains in its full force and vigor. We need only ask such a skeptic, What his meaning is? And what he proposes by all these curious researches? He is immediately at a loss, and knows not what to answer.

But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his principles universally and steadily to prevail.

And though a Pyrrhonian may throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to show the whimsical condition of mankind, who must act and reason and believe; though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove the objections, which may be raised against them.

skepticism is fine, but being excessively skeptical is meaningless i think

[siva_chair]

Do you believe false beliefs are not dangerous?

What I believe isn't the issue here.


That was for your benefit.

How very generous of you.

[PerpetualBurn]

You believe that your belief isn't the issue here.

I know the issue here.

[siva_chair]

You believe that your belief isn't the issue here.

I know the issue here.

My belief has nothing to do with whether or not his argument is internally consistent.

[PerpetualBurn]

That stems from your beliefs.

[siva_chair]

Ok.

[Der Übermensch]

here! paragraph 128
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8echu10h.htm#section12

skepticism is fine, but being excessively skeptical is meaningless i think

Hume is the best 8-)

[HomoDegerous]

That is a trivial belief, one which can be verified in the moment. It may be french people don't speak french, unless you speak french how would you know what french is?

But what if you did speak French how could you be certain that you were indeed speaking French? :confused:

[The AntiJew]

Precisely. There is nothing which intrinsically has the property 'french', only nominally, for it varies from place to place and region to region. What is only is relative to the observer and nothing more. To say this or that has some property or quality which makes it what it is is stupid.

And as for Hume he only argued against radical skepticism to avoid being further persecuted as an atheist and a radical. He was persecuted during his life for being an Atheist and was denied a position teaching because of it. Hume was a radical skeptic, and the problem of induction goes back to the Pyrhhonists anyways he didn't think of it, he only articulated it well in English.

[Smokey D]

To say this or that has some property or quality which makes it what it is is stupid.

No. A language which isn't doesn't resemble French isn't French.

[peeted]

Its not in the least bit stupid to say that things have properties that make them what they are. You have complete and utter meaning sceptiscism otherwise.

[The AntiJew]

No. A language which isn't doesn't resemble French isn't French.

You ignored what I said. French varies from place to place and speaker to speaker, it may be french but to say it is french because it has some intrinsic property that makes it french is what is dumb. French is a label, not a property.

Its not in the least bit stupid to say that things have properties that make them what they are. You have complete and utter meaning sceptiscism otherwise.

It is quite stupid. Saying an apple is an apple because it has appleness is plain retarded. Things have names and that is what they are called by but you dont know what the thing is in itself except by the name you call it. Intrinsic properties or qualities only exist as names and nothing else.

[peeted]

So you think that the statement "water is H20" is completley subjective?

If we were to discover that there are lakes which we previousley thought were made of H20 but after examination were found to be made of some substence called XYZ it would still be legitimate to call it water? Because if not you can say that the property that makes water water is the fact that it is the compound H20. Now there are plenty of expendable facts about water which do not define its meaning, for example the fact that its seethrough, you can imagine a possible world where water is not seethrough, but there is no possible world where water is not H20 because if it isnt H20 it is not water, it is something else.

You can ascribe intrinsic properties to things without some mystical platonic theory of meaning you know.

[The AntiJew]

H2O is a name. What is it? It doesnt provide any clues what that stuff is other than hydrogen and oxygen binding in a certain way, but what is the hydrogen and oxygen? Electrons and other particles... and who knows what that stuff is made of. It only provides a point of reference from which you can speak about it. It is H2O if you are a chemist and other things in different situations.

Even if all water is H2O, it is still a name and that is it, we could call it OCIXEM if we wanted to and then it wouldn't be H2O, we cant really know absolutely if every drop of water will always be OCIXEM or if OCIXEM is the same thing as H2O, and if it was OCIXEM it wouldn't be H2O would it.

[peeted]

Im not sure i understand your last sentence "or if OCIXEM is the same thing as H20, and if it was OCIXEM it wouldnt be H20 would it". I think its quite obvious that if OCIXEM was teh same as H20 then it would be H20, the same way ein hund is a dog, they both mean the same.

With regards to your first paragraph H20 does provide us with some clues as to what the stuff is because the stuff prescisley is hydrogen and oxygen binding in a certain way. And ok there is a regress with regards to what hydrogen and oxygen are etc but this regress doesnt really provide any problem for a theory of meaning since the essence of each constituant part (e.g. hydrogen and oxygen) is discoverable (for example we may not know how the very smallest particles work yet, but thats not to say that there is no way in which they work or that we cant ever know how they work, which would have to be the case for your argument to work).

[The AntiJew]

ok look if it were OCIXEM or XYZ it wouldnt be H2O the symbols are different there can be many words to describe something that appears to be the same thing the difference is in the name

and even still water and H2O are different things in different points of view it changes in each frame of reference from which it is being observed. There is no way to know with absolute certainty all water has the pattern, or if it will always be that pattern. There is no way to know with any certainty, it is only a good guess it will probably be the same tomorrow. And there is no way to know with certainty it was what it was in the past what it is now. Everything changes and even when things stand still they are moving.

Even if one day they determine what everything is made of they will not know what it is they will attribute some properties to them that describe how it behaves or whatever but it is not absolute it is only a description of how the thing appears to be from some point of observation there is no absolute frame of reference from which we can observe things

[peeted]

You can know that water will always be H20 because if the chemical makeup of every sea, lake river etc on the earth changed over night the world would no longer be coverd in water, it would be coverd in something else. You seem to be atempting to apply Humean sceptiscism about induction to theories of meaning.

And i dont quite see what your point is about Water and OCIXEM being diffrent sets of symbols. They are diffrent symbols which carry the exact same meaning.

And I dont understand your final paragraph because it doesnt seem to make any gramatical sense.

[jaredong]

Well.... all this is from my first year of phil class... so it might be shakey! Jeeze lol asking these kinda questions after a summer and before classes start hurts my brain.

anyway! In respect to the original post about only knowing things that are being experienced at the very moment:

http://neurocontrarian.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/collingwood-revisited/

Collingwood proposes that there are some things you cannot question, they are absolute presuppositions. For example, I am a carpenter. I have a ruler. I am measuring a table.

Preposition: The Table is 24 inches long
Relative Presupposition: My tape measure is accurate
Absolute Presupposition: Measurement is possible

My preposition that the table is 24 inches long presupposes that my tape measure is accurate. The accuracy can be proved wrong or right and verified. However, that presupposes that "measurement is possible" cannot be questioned or verified; it just is.

Same with water i guess.

Presupposition: Water is made of H20
Relative presupposition: Chemists made the elemental table right
Absolute presupposition: Water is made of something...

Although it is really difficult to articulate and figure out what absolute presuppositions are, they are things that we "know" for certain. Else, nothing can be understood or known. Its like when a kid keeps asking "why why why" sooner or later the answer is "because!".

Why does math work? Why is logic possible?

I think we need to "know" some things to make sense of anything at all. And at least, we know that.

[jaredong]

From the point of making predictive statements such as "water is h20":

We cannot definitively say that everything i test what water is it would come to be h20. But its not a big deal either i think.

According to AJ Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic (emphasis added):

Thus is appears that there is no possible way of solving the problem of induction, as it is ordinarily conceived. And this means that is a fictious problem, since all genuine problems are at least theoretically capable of being solved: and the credit of natural science is not impaired by the fact that some philosophers continue to be puzzled by it.

We are entitled to have faith in our procedure just so long as it does the work which it is designed to do-- that is, enable us to predict future experience, and so to control our environment. Of course, the fact that a certain form of procedure has always been successful in practice affords no logical guarantee that it will continue to be so. But then it is a mistake to demand a guarantee where it is logically impossible to obtain one. This does not mean that it is irrational to expect future experience to conform to the past.

Basically: we cannot solve the problem of induction (that water will always be h20) but then... if it cannot be solved its not really a problem.

We are entitled to "believe" the future will conform to the past, but we cannot give a guarantee that it will always be because its not possible.

[peeted]

"water is h20" is not a predictive statement its a descriptive statement.

Weather water is H20 has nothing to do with the problem of induction. When you say "water is H2O" you are not saying "all water observed so far has had the cemical make up H20" you are saying "if we observe something we thought was water which doesnt have the cemical makeup H20 then it is not water". Its like saying that the problem of induction aplies to weather or not a batchelor is an unmarried man, its not because all so far observed batcholors have been unmarried, it is because batcholor simply means unmarried man.

There is of course one big diffrence, that being that we didnt always know water was H20, and you never know, our best science may be wrong. When i say "water is H20" it has basicaly been a simpler way of saying "there is some discoverable thing P, which water is", the problem of induction is still irelevent because you can say with complete certaintey that water is P, and that anything discoverd that isnt P simply isnt water.

Or formaly (im just using capital E and A for the quantifiers)
Ex(Px)&Ay(~Py -> ~(x = y)) I think a statement of this form can be constructed about any existent thing.

[The AntiJew]

Semantic value is relative to the context in which a word or symbol is used. Why is it not possible for a world where H2O is something other than water?
How do you know there is not a possible world where there is married bachelor? Logic does not give meaning and meaning can not be evaluated logically. Logic is not absolute and the meaning of words changes as language evolves.

[peeted]

There is no possible world where there is a married batchelor because the idea of a married batchelor is a contradiction. Logic is absolute and the fact that meanings atatched to words change as time progresses doesnt make a diffrence. Meaning changes because the words come to signify diffrent things. The only way that there would be a world where people could correctley state "there is a married batchelor" is a world where one of the words signified something else, for example if batchelor meant man. But in this case the language would be diffrent to ours so that statement would not translate into our language as a true statement that there is a married batchelor but insted the statement "there is a married man". The same thing would apply to people in the future if their language had changed from ours. If someone in our current language community however states "there is a married batchelor" they are quite simply wrong.